To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 564:
564) CCGs. Cost Effectiveness? Effectiveness?
Dear Mr Clark,
The charity Parkinson's UK (Continuing to care?) and an individual, Fleur Perry (disabledgo) made freedom of information act requests to all the CCGs in England. Many of those CCGs either didn't bother to respond to their requests or sent back doctored information.
Thanks to Fleur Perry's efforts we now know that CCGs apparently have, "finite resources" and are planning, "cost effective packages of care."
However, this fiscal responsibility does not extend to their chief executives' remuneration packages:
"E-reward, an online pay research service, analysed the pay of more than 2.500 managers at 211 CCGs in England in 2015. They reported that 56% of 225 top executives - chief officers and chief finance officers - were paying themselves more than the salary range recommended by NHS England of £95.000 and £125.000 a year."
Belt slackening for those at the top but belt tightening for the rest of us. The shared society in practice.
Top executives' generosity to themselves knows no limits - certainly not those recommended by NHS England. Recommendations are only that - recommendations to be ignored like those freedom of information act requests made by concerned members of the public.
I now know why my data protection act request to Livewell Southwest Ltd wasn't fully complied with - certain healthcare professionals and the organisations they run refuse to be held accountable.
An Act of Parliament? Just ignore it.
Are these people actually healthcare professionals or simply functionaries of a secretive and unaccountable part of a newly rigged market in health? And is the English taxpayer getting value for money? NHS England has a statutory duty under the Health and Social Care Act of 2012 to conduct annual assessments of every CCG in England. They rate CCGs on 6 categories. This is how NHS South Devon and Torbay and NHS NEW Devon performed in 2015 -2016:
- NHS South Devon and Torbay CCG;
Inadequate / Inadequate / Good / Inadequate / Inadequate / Requires improvement.
- NHS NEW Devon CCG;
Inadequate / Requires improvement / Good / Requires improvement / Inadequate / Requires imp.
Ipsos MORI didn't ask CCGs questions relating to NHS funded nursing care.
The largest group sampled by Ipsos MORI in this annual statutory assessment were doctors and their confidence in CCGs has declined each year over a three year period.
We don't know how CCGs arrive at their decisions regarding NHS funded nursing care because they won't say. We don't even know if they collect data on those decisions but we do know that they often refuse to share what information they do have. We do know CCGs will be, "cost effective" due to, "finite resources." Finite resources that have been drastically depleted by the annual burden of having to meet top executives' excessive pay demands.
212 shiny new troughs all big enough to accommodate those hundreds of rooting snouts.
Meanwhile care workers have to get by on the minimum wage. One care worker told me they have to pay for their own petrol to get from one patient to the next, pay for their own mobile phone bills to stay in touch with high command and pay for their own parking fines should they incur one whilst in the course of their professional health caring duties. He also didn't know how many hours work he would get from one week to the next.
In 4.2 Views of governance, Ipsos Mori report;
"... the proportion who think these arrangements are effective has fallen significantly since 2015 and 2014. ... GP member practices are less likely to feel that their suggestions are listened to or taken on board by the CCG then they have been in previous years."
Governance?
Unite The Union surveyed the 3.392 CCG board members in 2015 and reported that 513 were directors of private healthcare companies: 140 owned such businesses and 105 carried out external work for them. More than 400 board members were shareholders in such companies.
Does the "CC" in CCG stand for cosy club or crony capitalism?
In short:
Excessive pay + a refusal to be held accountable for the ludicrous decisions made in determining NHS funded nursing care cases + questionable governance + conflicts of interest = a national scandal in the newly rigged market in so-called healthcare.
Q. Mr Clark, why isn't each and every decision regarding NHS funded nursing care fully explained, fully documented and made available for public scrutiny?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
Sunday, 29 January 2017
Saturday, 28 January 2017
The Inquisition Had Its Instruments Of Torture. (563)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 563:
563) The Inquisition Had Its Instruments Of Torture.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Inquisition had its instruments of torture we have the National Framework for NHS CHC and NHS Funded Nursing Care's Diagnostic Support Tool or DST.
Diagnostic?
A survey by Parkinson's UK suggests that 80% of professional healthcare workers would disagree. As for the remaining 20% one can only shake one's head in disbelief.
Thanks to Monty Python we probably know more about the Inquisition (the Spanish variety) than we do about the National Framework (or NF for short).This is no doubt due to a lack of academic research, media coverage and transparency and accountability of those who lie to, rob, cheat and abuse the sick, the elderly and the dying on a daily basis.
Imagine; you get up in the morning look at yourself in the mirror and then head off for a nice day of lying to, robbing, cheating and abusing the most vulnerable members of our society. And all paid for by the taxpayer.
The CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd has declined to name his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer or provided us with an explanation for that individual's one line sentence decision in our late father's case. Neither did we receive all the information we requested from our Data Protection Act request.
This is not an acceptable standard of transparency or accountability in a country that has supposedly, "taken back control."
David Oliver's article, "NHS continuing care is a mess" does attempt to redress the imbalance in reporting and gives us a glimpse of the reality behind the, "diagnostics."
"- Disputes, delays and bureaucracy mushroomed as organisations battled to avoid taking on the increased costs.
- More patients were left waiting in the system, unable to move on.
- Unseemly disputes arise about just how quickly a patient is likely to die and whether its soon enough to access funding.
- Huge variations remain in the time taken to make assessments and decisions.
- I've witnessed plenty of gaming and retreat to organised interests."
He believes that politicians;
"should simplify the arbitrary rules around funding between health and social care."
That this appalling system is somehow salvageable.
(www.bmj.com/about-bmj/freelance-contributions/david-oliver)
This seems unlikely.
Organised vested interests are set to dominate decision making. Too much money is at stake. As for the gaming - there would appear to be no rules. Diagnostic tool? It's like turning up to knife fight armed with a pair of boxing gloves and a copy of the Queensberry Rules tucked under your arm.
Fleur Perry's findings are really deeply concerning for those who care. Politicians and CCG policy makers appear set to turn the NF into an inquisitor's rack.
She made 212 Freedom of Information Act requests in an attempt to uncover just how CCGs arrived at their NHS CHC decisions and received 122 responses. 90 didn't bother. 53 CCGs said they had drawn up their own policies and she found that 44 of them contained, "concerning" phrases that suggested CCGs would move disabled people into institutions against their wishes even if the cost of the homecare package was only slightly more expensive than residential care.
Fleur Perry said, "This research shows that in many areas of the country, I'd have been forced into a care home against my will a long time ago. I find that a very disturbing thought. Each of these policies would have to have been signed by a board of perhaps a dozen people. This means that there are likely to be more than 500 people working for the NHS who would not object to me, or someone like me, being moved (into an institution) against their will."
For example, Southampton City CCG policy made it clear it had been developed to make, "effective use of finite resources" and for care packages to be, "cost effective."
(www.disabledgo.com/blog/2017/01more-than)
Rationing in other words.
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) would appear to be little better than Organised Crime Syndicates (or OSGs.) with the Extortion Racket they are secretly redefining set to become yet even more inhumane.
In the past people were forced into workhouses against their will, the modern-day variant appears to be warehouses and the enforced warehousing of the disabled also against their will. Quite a prospect when you stop to consider that each and every one of is likely to become disabled at some point in our lives especially if we live long enough.
These 500 anonymous healthcare professionals and policy makers bear a striking resemblance to Nurse Ratched in Ken Kesey's, "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest." She was also a healthcare professional who according to the novel's narrator, Chief Bromden, was always, "calculating," "mechanical," a "little white knot of tight smiled fury" and who did not, "tolerate challenges to her authority."
A study in cold inhumanity.
For her what mattered was the total control of her ward. For the 500 what counts seems to be the total control over, "finite resources." In doing so they undoubtedly launched a second National Health Lottery - the lottery of NHS funded nursing care.
It is abundantly clear the CCGs - OCGs - see Freedom of Information Act and data Protection Act requests as a challenge to their unaccountable authority and treat them with cold, clinical contempt , either ignoring them totally or grudgingly handing enquirers carefully doctored scraps of information.
Nye Bevan would be mortified.
Q. Mr Clark, doesn't it sum up the true nature of our shared society that we must rely upon courageous individuals like Fleur Perry and her freedom of information act requests, to challenge the vested interests of NHS CCGs in a desperate attempt to uncover what the plotters are plotting?
Q. Mr Clark, why are NHS CCGs - OCGs - so secretive, opaque and unaccountable and how can any of this be good for our shared society and our democracy?
Q. Mr Clark, have NHS CCGs modelled themselves on the RICS "appointed" company - OS:Property?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 563:
563) The Inquisition Had Its Instruments Of Torture.
Dear Mr Clark,
The Inquisition had its instruments of torture we have the National Framework for NHS CHC and NHS Funded Nursing Care's Diagnostic Support Tool or DST.
Diagnostic?
A survey by Parkinson's UK suggests that 80% of professional healthcare workers would disagree. As for the remaining 20% one can only shake one's head in disbelief.
Thanks to Monty Python we probably know more about the Inquisition (the Spanish variety) than we do about the National Framework (or NF for short).This is no doubt due to a lack of academic research, media coverage and transparency and accountability of those who lie to, rob, cheat and abuse the sick, the elderly and the dying on a daily basis.
Imagine; you get up in the morning look at yourself in the mirror and then head off for a nice day of lying to, robbing, cheating and abusing the most vulnerable members of our society. And all paid for by the taxpayer.
The CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd has declined to name his Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer or provided us with an explanation for that individual's one line sentence decision in our late father's case. Neither did we receive all the information we requested from our Data Protection Act request.
This is not an acceptable standard of transparency or accountability in a country that has supposedly, "taken back control."
David Oliver's article, "NHS continuing care is a mess" does attempt to redress the imbalance in reporting and gives us a glimpse of the reality behind the, "diagnostics."
"- Disputes, delays and bureaucracy mushroomed as organisations battled to avoid taking on the increased costs.
- More patients were left waiting in the system, unable to move on.
- Unseemly disputes arise about just how quickly a patient is likely to die and whether its soon enough to access funding.
- Huge variations remain in the time taken to make assessments and decisions.
- I've witnessed plenty of gaming and retreat to organised interests."
He believes that politicians;
"should simplify the arbitrary rules around funding between health and social care."
That this appalling system is somehow salvageable.
(www.bmj.com/about-bmj/freelance-contributions/david-oliver)
This seems unlikely.
Organised vested interests are set to dominate decision making. Too much money is at stake. As for the gaming - there would appear to be no rules. Diagnostic tool? It's like turning up to knife fight armed with a pair of boxing gloves and a copy of the Queensberry Rules tucked under your arm.
Fleur Perry's findings are really deeply concerning for those who care. Politicians and CCG policy makers appear set to turn the NF into an inquisitor's rack.
She made 212 Freedom of Information Act requests in an attempt to uncover just how CCGs arrived at their NHS CHC decisions and received 122 responses. 90 didn't bother. 53 CCGs said they had drawn up their own policies and she found that 44 of them contained, "concerning" phrases that suggested CCGs would move disabled people into institutions against their wishes even if the cost of the homecare package was only slightly more expensive than residential care.
Fleur Perry said, "This research shows that in many areas of the country, I'd have been forced into a care home against my will a long time ago. I find that a very disturbing thought. Each of these policies would have to have been signed by a board of perhaps a dozen people. This means that there are likely to be more than 500 people working for the NHS who would not object to me, or someone like me, being moved (into an institution) against their will."
For example, Southampton City CCG policy made it clear it had been developed to make, "effective use of finite resources" and for care packages to be, "cost effective."
(www.disabledgo.com/blog/2017/01more-than)
Rationing in other words.
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) would appear to be little better than Organised Crime Syndicates (or OSGs.) with the Extortion Racket they are secretly redefining set to become yet even more inhumane.
In the past people were forced into workhouses against their will, the modern-day variant appears to be warehouses and the enforced warehousing of the disabled also against their will. Quite a prospect when you stop to consider that each and every one of is likely to become disabled at some point in our lives especially if we live long enough.
These 500 anonymous healthcare professionals and policy makers bear a striking resemblance to Nurse Ratched in Ken Kesey's, "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest." She was also a healthcare professional who according to the novel's narrator, Chief Bromden, was always, "calculating," "mechanical," a "little white knot of tight smiled fury" and who did not, "tolerate challenges to her authority."
A study in cold inhumanity.
For her what mattered was the total control of her ward. For the 500 what counts seems to be the total control over, "finite resources." In doing so they undoubtedly launched a second National Health Lottery - the lottery of NHS funded nursing care.
It is abundantly clear the CCGs - OCGs - see Freedom of Information Act and data Protection Act requests as a challenge to their unaccountable authority and treat them with cold, clinical contempt , either ignoring them totally or grudgingly handing enquirers carefully doctored scraps of information.
Nye Bevan would be mortified.
Q. Mr Clark, doesn't it sum up the true nature of our shared society that we must rely upon courageous individuals like Fleur Perry and her freedom of information act requests, to challenge the vested interests of NHS CCGs in a desperate attempt to uncover what the plotters are plotting?
Q. Mr Clark, why are NHS CCGs - OCGs - so secretive, opaque and unaccountable and how can any of this be good for our shared society and our democracy?
Q. Mr Clark, have NHS CCGs modelled themselves on the RICS "appointed" company - OS:Property?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent campaign is at: www.blogger.com
Thursday, 26 January 2017
The RICS "Appointed" OS:Property / The NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. (562)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 562.
562) Both Organisations Are Outstandingly Successful At Burying The Evidence Of Their Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Not only is this government unwilling to collect the avoided taxes of the rich and the super-rich, it also steadfastly refuses to collect data on the National Framework or NHS CHC and NHS Funded Nursing Care decisions, thereby unofficially taxing the sick, the elderly and the dying members of our society.
When I made my Data Protection Act request to Professor Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd I didn't receive all the information that I was expecting.
But then neither did the Continuing Healthcare Alliance.
In their Report, "Continuing To Care?" (Appendix 4) they tell us that they,
"sent a FOI Act request to all CCGs in England asking for information about various aspects of NHS CHC. WE made the request in May 2016.
* 129 responded out of 213.
* of the 129 responses we received , many CCGs said our request would take too long to collate information so provided limited answers to certain questions."
This is hardly a 21st century standard of transparency and accountability.
That The Extortion Racket, because that undoubtedly is what is - an Extortion Racket, should so efficiently be robbing the sick, the elderly and the dying of what is rightfully theirs whilst successfully covering-up the data on this appalling scandal at a time when the rich have such easy access to hassle-free tax avoidance schemes, suggests that the Prime Minister's vision of a shared society lacks all credibility.
Q. Mr Clark, why do the RICS OS:Property and the NHS NEW Devon CCG produce no data on their decisions? Is it because significant amounts of money are involved?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 562.
562) Both Organisations Are Outstandingly Successful At Burying The Evidence Of Their Ludicrous Decisions.
Dear Mr Clark,
Not only is this government unwilling to collect the avoided taxes of the rich and the super-rich, it also steadfastly refuses to collect data on the National Framework or NHS CHC and NHS Funded Nursing Care decisions, thereby unofficially taxing the sick, the elderly and the dying members of our society.
When I made my Data Protection Act request to Professor Waite's Livewell Southwest Ltd I didn't receive all the information that I was expecting.
But then neither did the Continuing Healthcare Alliance.
In their Report, "Continuing To Care?" (Appendix 4) they tell us that they,
"sent a FOI Act request to all CCGs in England asking for information about various aspects of NHS CHC. WE made the request in May 2016.
* 129 responded out of 213.
* of the 129 responses we received , many CCGs said our request would take too long to collate information so provided limited answers to certain questions."
This is hardly a 21st century standard of transparency and accountability.
That The Extortion Racket, because that undoubtedly is what is - an Extortion Racket, should so efficiently be robbing the sick, the elderly and the dying of what is rightfully theirs whilst successfully covering-up the data on this appalling scandal at a time when the rich have such easy access to hassle-free tax avoidance schemes, suggests that the Prime Minister's vision of a shared society lacks all credibility.
Q. Mr Clark, why do the RICS OS:Property and the NHS NEW Devon CCG produce no data on their decisions? Is it because significant amounts of money are involved?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
Monday, 23 January 2017
RICS Appointed OS:Property / NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. (561)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 561.
561) The Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer.
Dear Mr Clark,
The 2012 National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS funded Nursing Care Consultative Document stated that;
"The Government is determined to establish a simpler, fairer and more coherent system of assessment to determine the eligibility for full NHS funding of long-term care which can be applied consistently across England."
(www.webarchive.nationalarchices.gov.uk)
Simpler, fairer, more coherent and consistently applied assessments across the whole of England by a determined Government is quite a commitment by politicians to deliver justice to the people of this country.
And needless to say it hasn't happened. It immediately veered off course shortly after it was launched.
Dr Louise Irvine's, "The Scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding" paints a more accurate picture of what is really happening,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and that our politicians would like to keep that way. It is only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, complex and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs."
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-louise-irvine/nhs-funding)
The reality is that the system is complex, unfair and inhumane and that politicians want to keep it that way. Otherwise things would be very different.
I agree with Dr Irvine. She describes the system as it as it is. A shambles. An extortion racket.
The system in operation at Livewell Southwest Ltd even has an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer although its CEO, Professor Waite, believes we should have known who that anonymous person was only he isn't prepared to tell us.
So no transparency or accountability there.
On top of all that the NHS, and for reasons known only to itself, does not keep data on the decisions it arrives at. As a consequence of this state of anarchy all sorts of practices that do not work in the patient's interests have been allowed to incubate and flourish.
For example,
"...there is no definition in law of a Primary health Need. It means a culture has developed where NHS funding assessors seem to apply the their own subjective interpretation of the guidelines onto funding decisions."
(www.caretobedifferent,co.uk/paying-care-home-fees/the-coughlan-case)
Hugely important funding decisions are being made by anonymous and unaccountable assessors who can, and often do, base their judgements on subjective interpretations, spite, whim or fancy. What is more those assessors know that their decisions aren't being logged or monitored. So instead of the fair system consistently applied we have one that has become an unaccountable post code lottery, inconsistently applied.
This is totally unacceptable.
The more one discovers about the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, the more scandalous it becomes.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step, challenge the vested interests of the NHS and right the wrong of appalling decisions made by the Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer and all the other Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers throughout England?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
For Clarity - Attempt 561.
561) The Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer.
Dear Mr Clark,
The 2012 National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS funded Nursing Care Consultative Document stated that;
"The Government is determined to establish a simpler, fairer and more coherent system of assessment to determine the eligibility for full NHS funding of long-term care which can be applied consistently across England."
(www.webarchive.nationalarchices.gov.uk)
Simpler, fairer, more coherent and consistently applied assessments across the whole of England by a determined Government is quite a commitment by politicians to deliver justice to the people of this country.
And needless to say it hasn't happened. It immediately veered off course shortly after it was launched.
Dr Louise Irvine's, "The Scandal of NHS Continuing Healthcare Funding" paints a more accurate picture of what is really happening,
"There is an area of healthcare that the general public in England does not know much about and that our politicians would like to keep that way. It is only when you have a relative with a serious long term health condition that you discover the complex, complex and inhumane system that you have to go through to get NHS funding for the care your loved one needs."
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-louise-irvine/nhs-funding)
The reality is that the system is complex, unfair and inhumane and that politicians want to keep it that way. Otherwise things would be very different.
I agree with Dr Irvine. She describes the system as it as it is. A shambles. An extortion racket.
The system in operation at Livewell Southwest Ltd even has an Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer although its CEO, Professor Waite, believes we should have known who that anonymous person was only he isn't prepared to tell us.
So no transparency or accountability there.
On top of all that the NHS, and for reasons known only to itself, does not keep data on the decisions it arrives at. As a consequence of this state of anarchy all sorts of practices that do not work in the patient's interests have been allowed to incubate and flourish.
For example,
"...there is no definition in law of a Primary health Need. It means a culture has developed where NHS funding assessors seem to apply the their own subjective interpretation of the guidelines onto funding decisions."
(www.caretobedifferent,co.uk/paying-care-home-fees/the-coughlan-case)
Hugely important funding decisions are being made by anonymous and unaccountable assessors who can, and often do, base their judgements on subjective interpretations, spite, whim or fancy. What is more those assessors know that their decisions aren't being logged or monitored. So instead of the fair system consistently applied we have one that has become an unaccountable post code lottery, inconsistently applied.
This is totally unacceptable.
The more one discovers about the National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, the more scandalous it becomes.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step, challenge the vested interests of the NHS and right the wrong of appalling decisions made by the Livewell Southwest Ltd's Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer and all the other Anonymous Desk Top Reviewers throughout England?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The RICS Appointed OS:Property / The NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. (560)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 560:
560) Complaining is a difficult process (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
Four times Andrew Marr attempted to ask Theresa May if she knew about the malfunctioning trident missile before she addressed the House of Commons and four times she veered off course like her rocket.
All that was missing was a cock crowing at the back of the BBC studio each time Mrs May denied Mr Marr an answer.
Complaining is a difficult process because far too many people follow our Prime Minister's poor example and see it as their job to be evasive. There is an epidemic of evasiveness in this country and it appears to only be getting worse.
Evasiveness is when an ombudsman informs you that just because they haven't answered your question it doesn't mean they've refused to answer it or when a senior NHS executive answers your question to them by repeating it back to you.
It is difficult not to come to the sad and sorry conclusion that honesty has been replaced by influencing skills (or lying through your teeth as it was once more commonly known).
Yesterday I attempted to find out just how many of the sick, the elderly and the dying had had their NHS CHC Assessments rejected and how many of them had successfully appealed those decisions, so I naively went to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) website only to discover that the PHSO, Dame Julie Mellor, doesn't collect that sort of information.
That is extraordinary.
Fortunately, I discovered;
Continuing to care? - Parkinson's UK. (is NHS continuing healthcare supporting the people who need it? Written by Parkinson's UK is association with the continuing healthcare alliance.) www.parkinsons.uk Thankfully, this timely report asks hugely important questions of the NHS and government in England.
When 80% of professional surveyed said the Diagnostic Support Tool (DST) was not fit for purpose then clearly something is drastically wrong with a system that is clearly rigged in favour of the state. That the sick, the elderly and the dying (and their loved ones) should be confronted by such a system at such a difficult time for them is inexcusable.
It is inhumane.
It is difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the National Framework for NHS CHC is a deliberate attempt to extort money from those when they are at their most vulnerable. It is to all intents and purposes, an extortion racket. Otherwise things would be very different.
On page 17 - Righting the wrongs: The appeals process, the report states;
"Appealing a decision about NHS CHC can be time consuming, complex and distressing. Often people wait for months and even years. During that time it is likely that individuals are paying for care unnecessarily and also employing solicitors to support them through the process."
Q. Mr Clark, why aren't the victims of this inhumane and degrading extortion racket awarded - in full - the costs of having to employ the services of a solicitor in order to recoup the money that was wrongfully taken from them in the first place?
Crucially, the report carries recommendations that politicians of whatever persuasion must surely act upon;
Filling In The Blanks: Improving The Data That Is Gathered;
"In order to improve something, we need to know what is wrong. This is hard to prove when it comes to NHS CHC as so little data is collected. We know nothing about all of those who were unsuccessful. We don't know how long they waited for an assessment. Why they were unsuccessful or if they appealed. We know that healthcare professionals have huge demands on their time but, it is essential that accurate information around NHS CHC is recorded so the system can be improved and problematic areas can be tackled." (page 26)
Q Mr Clark, neither the RICS appointed Ombudsman Services:Property nor the NHS CHC regimes gather and publish data on the dreadful decisions they all too frequently arrive at. When are politicians going to heed Theresa May's instruction to them to step up, challenge vested interests and right the wrongs of shocking decisions and maladministered appeals processes?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmns61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 560:
560) Complaining is a difficult process (2).
Dear Mr Clark,
Four times Andrew Marr attempted to ask Theresa May if she knew about the malfunctioning trident missile before she addressed the House of Commons and four times she veered off course like her rocket.
All that was missing was a cock crowing at the back of the BBC studio each time Mrs May denied Mr Marr an answer.
Complaining is a difficult process because far too many people follow our Prime Minister's poor example and see it as their job to be evasive. There is an epidemic of evasiveness in this country and it appears to only be getting worse.
Evasiveness is when an ombudsman informs you that just because they haven't answered your question it doesn't mean they've refused to answer it or when a senior NHS executive answers your question to them by repeating it back to you.
It is difficult not to come to the sad and sorry conclusion that honesty has been replaced by influencing skills (or lying through your teeth as it was once more commonly known).
Yesterday I attempted to find out just how many of the sick, the elderly and the dying had had their NHS CHC Assessments rejected and how many of them had successfully appealed those decisions, so I naively went to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's (PHSO) website only to discover that the PHSO, Dame Julie Mellor, doesn't collect that sort of information.
That is extraordinary.
Fortunately, I discovered;
Continuing to care? - Parkinson's UK. (is NHS continuing healthcare supporting the people who need it? Written by Parkinson's UK is association with the continuing healthcare alliance.) www.parkinsons.uk Thankfully, this timely report asks hugely important questions of the NHS and government in England.
When 80% of professional surveyed said the Diagnostic Support Tool (DST) was not fit for purpose then clearly something is drastically wrong with a system that is clearly rigged in favour of the state. That the sick, the elderly and the dying (and their loved ones) should be confronted by such a system at such a difficult time for them is inexcusable.
It is inhumane.
It is difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the National Framework for NHS CHC is a deliberate attempt to extort money from those when they are at their most vulnerable. It is to all intents and purposes, an extortion racket. Otherwise things would be very different.
On page 17 - Righting the wrongs: The appeals process, the report states;
"Appealing a decision about NHS CHC can be time consuming, complex and distressing. Often people wait for months and even years. During that time it is likely that individuals are paying for care unnecessarily and also employing solicitors to support them through the process."
Q. Mr Clark, why aren't the victims of this inhumane and degrading extortion racket awarded - in full - the costs of having to employ the services of a solicitor in order to recoup the money that was wrongfully taken from them in the first place?
Crucially, the report carries recommendations that politicians of whatever persuasion must surely act upon;
Filling In The Blanks: Improving The Data That Is Gathered;
"In order to improve something, we need to know what is wrong. This is hard to prove when it comes to NHS CHC as so little data is collected. We know nothing about all of those who were unsuccessful. We don't know how long they waited for an assessment. Why they were unsuccessful or if they appealed. We know that healthcare professionals have huge demands on their time but, it is essential that accurate information around NHS CHC is recorded so the system can be improved and problematic areas can be tackled." (page 26)
Q Mr Clark, neither the RICS appointed Ombudsman Services:Property nor the NHS CHC regimes gather and publish data on the dreadful decisions they all too frequently arrive at. When are politicians going to heed Theresa May's instruction to them to step up, challenge vested interests and right the wrongs of shocking decisions and maladministered appeals processes?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmns61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com
Saturday, 21 January 2017
RICS Ombudsmans Services. NHS Livewell Southwest Ltd. (559)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 559.
559) Complaining is a Difficult Process.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill produced a Policy Brief entitled - Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists. Centre For Socio - Legal Studies, Oxford University. Consumer Insight Centre Queen Margaret University. December 2015.
On page 7 they highlight the difficult and stressful nature of complaining.
Complaining is indeed a difficult process. I can testify to that. People have become highly skilled at keeping you waiting and then not answering your questions.
That is incredibly stressful and incredibly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to happen in this day and age but it does. That it persists so successfully points to a failure of successive politicians to empower the people who put them into office. It is corroding democracy.
I asked the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd (formerly Plymouth Community Healthcare):
Q. Why weren't the names of those responsible for this shameful decision included in your email to our late father's advocate? The shameful decision being the one that decided to, "award" our late father two weeks grace from having to pay the full cost of his care.
You say,
"It is not usual practice to name individuals who have been involved in the verification process."
A system in which the individual is subjected to a," verification process" (that in effect could take from them everything they've lived and worked for) and doesn't even permit them to know who is responsible for that decision and just exactly how it was arrived at, is tyrannical. It belongs in a bygone age.
The response I received states that the MDT assess the information which is passed to the CCG who assess the information and that the patient and his or her family are somehow expected to know who these people are and how they arrived at their fantastical decisions.
In short, we still do not know for the decision and we still do not know the medical evidence upon which it was based.
There is no transparency and no accountability in this branch of the NHS.
This is what I mean when I say that the, "verification process" is an extortion racket.
If the sick, the elderly and the dying (and their loved ones) are to be further subjected to the appalling National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, then at the very least patients should have the right to know who it is who are making such hugely important decisions and what evidence those decisions are being based upon.
Q. Mr Clark, Francis Muade said that transparency was to be at the very heart of government. Where is the transparency in these NHS decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign can be found at: www.blogger.com
For Clarity - Attempt 559.
559) Complaining is a Difficult Process.
Dear Mr Clark,
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill produced a Policy Brief entitled - Understanding and Engaging Online Citizen Activists. Centre For Socio - Legal Studies, Oxford University. Consumer Insight Centre Queen Margaret University. December 2015.
On page 7 they highlight the difficult and stressful nature of complaining.
Complaining is indeed a difficult process. I can testify to that. People have become highly skilled at keeping you waiting and then not answering your questions.
That is incredibly stressful and incredibly wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to happen in this day and age but it does. That it persists so successfully points to a failure of successive politicians to empower the people who put them into office. It is corroding democracy.
I asked the CEO of Livewell Southwest Ltd (formerly Plymouth Community Healthcare):
Q. Why weren't the names of those responsible for this shameful decision included in your email to our late father's advocate? The shameful decision being the one that decided to, "award" our late father two weeks grace from having to pay the full cost of his care.
You say,
"It is not usual practice to name individuals who have been involved in the verification process."
A system in which the individual is subjected to a," verification process" (that in effect could take from them everything they've lived and worked for) and doesn't even permit them to know who is responsible for that decision and just exactly how it was arrived at, is tyrannical. It belongs in a bygone age.
The response I received states that the MDT assess the information which is passed to the CCG who assess the information and that the patient and his or her family are somehow expected to know who these people are and how they arrived at their fantastical decisions.
In short, we still do not know for the decision and we still do not know the medical evidence upon which it was based.
There is no transparency and no accountability in this branch of the NHS.
This is what I mean when I say that the, "verification process" is an extortion racket.
If the sick, the elderly and the dying (and their loved ones) are to be further subjected to the appalling National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS Funded Nursing Care, then at the very least patients should have the right to know who it is who are making such hugely important decisions and what evidence those decisions are being based upon.
Q. Mr Clark, Francis Muade said that transparency was to be at the very heart of government. Where is the transparency in these NHS decisions?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign can be found at: www.blogger.com
Thursday, 19 January 2017
Ombudsman Services:Property / Livewell Southwest Ltd. (558)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary
For Clarity - Attempt 558.
558) Complaining Is A Difficult Process.
Dear Mr Clark,
Consumers once had the right to know just how many complainants were very dissatisfied with the final decision they were handed by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman because DJS Research told them.
DJS Research were replaced and we no longer know how many complainants are very dissatisfied with the outcome of their investigated complaint because complainants are no longer asked.
This information is not made available by Livewell Southwest Ltd either.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's research continues,
"Participants felt strongly that the current overall system for complaints, of which ombudsman schemes were a part, could have serious negative consequences for complainants in search of justice. One participant said that part of the problem was that the initial from the body complained against was often very dismissive but that this set the tone for subsequent investigations. Complaining was described as a difficult process, which required significant persistence, often at a time when complainants were in an emotionally fragile state." (page 7)
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
In short - the system fails the individual (in droves) so they complain about the system that fails them and then about the cover-up that passes for an investigation of their complaint, all at a time when they are at their most fragile and emotionally vulnerable.
And still they get nowhere.
The system we confront has it rigged from beginning to end.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you are going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and the NHS and right the wrongs of illogical decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 558.
558) Complaining Is A Difficult Process.
Dear Mr Clark,
Consumers once had the right to know just how many complainants were very dissatisfied with the final decision they were handed by the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman because DJS Research told them.
DJS Research were replaced and we no longer know how many complainants are very dissatisfied with the outcome of their investigated complaint because complainants are no longer asked.
This information is not made available by Livewell Southwest Ltd either.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's research continues,
"Participants felt strongly that the current overall system for complaints, of which ombudsman schemes were a part, could have serious negative consequences for complainants in search of justice. One participant said that part of the problem was that the initial from the body complained against was often very dismissive but that this set the tone for subsequent investigations. Complaining was described as a difficult process, which required significant persistence, often at a time when complainants were in an emotionally fragile state." (page 7)
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of the-ombudsman-system-understanding-and-engaging-online-citizen-activists)
In short - the system fails the individual (in droves) so they complain about the system that fails them and then about the cover-up that passes for an investigation of their complaint, all at a time when they are at their most fragile and emotionally vulnerable.
And still they get nowhere.
The system we confront has it rigged from beginning to end.
Q. Mr Clark, when are you are going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and the NHS and right the wrongs of illogical decisions and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Ombudsman Services:Property and Livewell Southwest Ltd - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. (557)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary and Professor Waite, CEO Livewell Southwest Ltd.
For clarity - Attempt 567:
567) Staffing and Qualifications.
Dear Mr Clark, Mr McCraken and Professor Waite.
It seems its not what you know that lands you a job at Ombudsman Services:Property or Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's research tells us,
"some perceived a lack of knowledge over the matters being investigated or, more generally, a lack of life experience. This could lead investigators accepting evidence provided by the bodies being investigated at face value. It was perceived that often staff did not have professional qualifications in the area being investigated nor did they have the legal qualifications to allow then to consider more general legal issues in cases. In terms of the ombudsman sector more generally, this was perceived to be a small world and something of, 'an old boys' and old girls' club.' Several ombudsmen and former ombudsmen sat on each other's board or acted as Independent Assessors, which mean that external perspectives were lacking."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system)
An old boys' and girls' club.
How terribly English.
We have on a number of occasions attempted to bring to your attention the sterling work carried out by DJS Research in exposing the ineptness of those supposedly "investigating" consumers' complaints at Ombudsman Services:Property but sadly to no avail.
(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports Ombudsman Services 2009 - 2011)
Ombudsman Services old boys' and girls' network can depend upon your old boys' and girls' network to collude with them in their maladministration and illogical decision making to the detriment of consumers. If it were the other way around all hell would break lose. But it isn't and it hasn't.
Ombudsman Services have even had the temerity to advise your department on the requirements of the European Directive on ADR.
Things would appear to be just as bad if not worse at Livewell Southwest Ltd. At this company there is no independent research, no customer satisfaction reports and as such, no accountability.
We've also attempted to bring to your attention the unaccounted for decision making at Livewell Southwest Ltd but also to no avail.
Q. Mr Clark, and Prof Waite when are you going to step, challenge the vested interests of the NHS and RICS and right the wrongs of illogical decision making and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign
For clarity - Attempt 567:
567) Staffing and Qualifications.
Dear Mr Clark, Mr McCraken and Professor Waite.
It seems its not what you know that lands you a job at Ombudsman Services:Property or Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill's research tells us,
"some perceived a lack of knowledge over the matters being investigated or, more generally, a lack of life experience. This could lead investigators accepting evidence provided by the bodies being investigated at face value. It was perceived that often staff did not have professional qualifications in the area being investigated nor did they have the legal qualifications to allow then to consider more general legal issues in cases. In terms of the ombudsman sector more generally, this was perceived to be a small world and something of, 'an old boys' and old girls' club.' Several ombudsmen and former ombudsmen sat on each other's board or acted as Independent Assessors, which mean that external perspectives were lacking."
(Naomi Creutzfeldt and Chris Gill: www.law.ox.ac.uk/critics-of-the-ombudsman-system)
An old boys' and girls' club.
How terribly English.
We have on a number of occasions attempted to bring to your attention the sterling work carried out by DJS Research in exposing the ineptness of those supposedly "investigating" consumers' complaints at Ombudsman Services:Property but sadly to no avail.
(DJS Research: Customer Satisfaction Reports Ombudsman Services 2009 - 2011)
Ombudsman Services old boys' and girls' network can depend upon your old boys' and girls' network to collude with them in their maladministration and illogical decision making to the detriment of consumers. If it were the other way around all hell would break lose. But it isn't and it hasn't.
Ombudsman Services have even had the temerity to advise your department on the requirements of the European Directive on ADR.
Things would appear to be just as bad if not worse at Livewell Southwest Ltd. At this company there is no independent research, no customer satisfaction reports and as such, no accountability.
We've also attempted to bring to your attention the unaccounted for decision making at Livewell Southwest Ltd but also to no avail.
Q. Mr Clark, and Prof Waite when are you going to step, challenge the vested interests of the NHS and RICS and right the wrongs of illogical decision making and maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign
Monday, 16 January 2017
Theresa May's Vision of a Shared Society. (566)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 566.
566) Theresa May's Vision of a Shared Society.
Dear Mr Clark,
It seems that the Prime Minister, took one look at the enormity of what faced her - a humanitarian crisis at the NHS and another one at Ombudsman Services - and promptly scapegoated the victims of her government's ineptitude
We had been assured by her that the role of government was,
"to step up to correct injustices and unfairness at every turn - because injustice and unfairness are things that drive us apart."
It's thanks to Mrs May's failure to face the facts - that according to the Kings Fund the NHS is chronically underfunded and according to the world respected Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, Ombudsman Services is chronically underscrutinised - that on a daily basis citizens, and the Elite who ignore them, are being driven inexorably apart.
Q. Mr Clark, why haven't you stepped up and corrected the injustice and unfairness of the illogical decisions and unfairness emanating from Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
In the same speech we were also told by Theresa May that no longer would the citizen be subjected to the unfairness and injustice of invisibility,
"when you try to raise concerns but they fall on deaf ears."
Q. Mr Clark, since 2010 we've been trying to raise our concerns about the shenanigans at Ombudsman Services and since 2016 those at Livewell Southwest Ltd. Why has everyone we've contacted about our concerns seemingly been fitted with a set of deaf ears?
The Prime Minister went on to claim that,
"government will step up to support and where necessary - enforce the responsibilities we have to each other as citizens, so that we respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work."
(Theresa May Speech Royal Academy 9 Jan 2017)
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd have a duty to citizens - an obligation - to arrive at their decisions in a fair, independent, transparent and accountable manner, so why don't they?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign
For Clarity - Attempt 566.
566) Theresa May's Vision of a Shared Society.
Dear Mr Clark,
It seems that the Prime Minister, took one look at the enormity of what faced her - a humanitarian crisis at the NHS and another one at Ombudsman Services - and promptly scapegoated the victims of her government's ineptitude
We had been assured by her that the role of government was,
"to step up to correct injustices and unfairness at every turn - because injustice and unfairness are things that drive us apart."
It's thanks to Mrs May's failure to face the facts - that according to the Kings Fund the NHS is chronically underfunded and according to the world respected Ombudsmans61percent Campaign, Ombudsman Services is chronically underscrutinised - that on a daily basis citizens, and the Elite who ignore them, are being driven inexorably apart.
Q. Mr Clark, why haven't you stepped up and corrected the injustice and unfairness of the illogical decisions and unfairness emanating from Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd?
In the same speech we were also told by Theresa May that no longer would the citizen be subjected to the unfairness and injustice of invisibility,
"when you try to raise concerns but they fall on deaf ears."
Q. Mr Clark, since 2010 we've been trying to raise our concerns about the shenanigans at Ombudsman Services and since 2016 those at Livewell Southwest Ltd. Why has everyone we've contacted about our concerns seemingly been fitted with a set of deaf ears?
The Prime Minister went on to claim that,
"government will step up to support and where necessary - enforce the responsibilities we have to each other as citizens, so that we respect the bonds and obligations that make our society work."
(Theresa May Speech Royal Academy 9 Jan 2017)
Q. Mr Clark, Ombudsman Services and Livewell Southwest Ltd have a duty to citizens - an obligation - to arrive at their decisions in a fair, independent, transparent and accountable manner, so why don't they?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
Ombudsman Services:Property - Theresa Mayism (565).
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary,
For Clarity - Attempt 565
565) Theresa Mayism.
Dear Mr Clark,
One of the key defining moments of Mrs May's premiership will be the time she failed to come out of hiding when Mr Harmsworth and Mr Murdoch's hirelings savaged those three unfortunate judges.
As a result of her failure to step up - a civic duty she had been instructing everyone else to do - and challenge Mr Harmsworth and Mr Murdoch's vested interests, one of the three pillars of our unwritten constitution - the independence of the judiciary - was yet further undermined by the hard right.
In her speech given yesterday she did however recognise that,
"the everyday injustices are too often overlooked" because "decisions made in faraway places didn't always seem to be the right decisions for them."
How perfectly true.
Take the Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions at faraway Warrington or the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's beyond all know logic decisions at faraway Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Everyday decisions that aren't right but are unjust.
If we're all now to expected to upsticks and decamp from The Big Society to The Shared Society isn't it now beholden on the RICS and the NHS to start sharing information and become transparent and accountable about their decision making processes?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and the NHS and right the wrongs of the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and The Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's unexplained decisions at Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 565
565) Theresa Mayism.
Dear Mr Clark,
One of the key defining moments of Mrs May's premiership will be the time she failed to come out of hiding when Mr Harmsworth and Mr Murdoch's hirelings savaged those three unfortunate judges.
As a result of her failure to step up - a civic duty she had been instructing everyone else to do - and challenge Mr Harmsworth and Mr Murdoch's vested interests, one of the three pillars of our unwritten constitution - the independence of the judiciary - was yet further undermined by the hard right.
In her speech given yesterday she did however recognise that,
"the everyday injustices are too often overlooked" because "decisions made in faraway places didn't always seem to be the right decisions for them."
How perfectly true.
Take the Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions at faraway Warrington or the Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's beyond all know logic decisions at faraway Livewell Southwest Ltd.
Everyday decisions that aren't right but are unjust.
If we're all now to expected to upsticks and decamp from The Big Society to The Shared Society isn't it now beholden on the RICS and the NHS to start sharing information and become transparent and accountable about their decision making processes?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and the NHS and right the wrongs of the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and The Anonymous Desk Top Reviewer's unexplained decisions at Livewell Southwest Ltd?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 8 January 2017
OS:Property: The Civil Service. Neutral? Or A Crumbling Cornerstone Of UK Democracy? (564)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 564.
564) The Civil Service. Neutral? Or A Crumbling Cornerstone Of UK Democracy?
Dear Mr Clark,
In our previous blog we saw the remarkable ease with which the RICS Parliamentary Affairs Team drove home their need to control the lettings market to civil servants, MPs and Ministers.
The RICS were outraged,
"currently there is a clear potential for rogue lettings agents to cash in on the current rental boom due to a combination of consumers' low expectations and a total lack of effective regulation."
Rogue agents? A total lack of effective regulation?
Q. Mr Clark, wasn't it the RICS' very own total lack of effective regulation which led Consumer Focus to warn government about RICS' rogue Members and rogue (Un)Regulated Firms developing practices which did not work in their client's interests?
Peter Bolton King, RICS Global Residential Director, carried on driving home to civil servants, MPs and Ministers his no-nonsense message for change,
"...there are too many corrupt agents that do not belong to any professional body who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk,"
whilst conveniently overlooking the corrupt Members and corrupt (Un)Regulated Firms belonging to his professional body who gleefully take advantage of RICS' corrupt and scandalous failure to adequately regulate them thereby saddling their clients with massive bills to put right their incompetence.
That's some title to have on your business card.
It's, "Global Campaigning Director Of The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign" from now on. Only we can't afford business cards.
The RICS Global Residential Director wasn't finished,
"...choosing the wrong agent can result in tenants encountering all sorts of problems such as lost deposits, broken agreements and excessive charges. What we would like to see is the government taking direct action on this and introducing a single regulatory and redress system for both sales and lettings agents to make sure they are fully accountable."
(www.arla.co.uk./news/november-2012/rics-issue-press-release-on-regulation-of-lettings-agents)
What the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign would like to see is the government taking direct action and ordering a public inquiry into how it came to be that an entire market in surveying developed practices that did not work in their client's interests, why the RICS fail to adequately regulate their Members, how it is that their appointed ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, and why their appointed company's executives maladminister consumers' complaints.
Q. Mr Clark, why have the neutral civil servants who monitor this government approved redress scheme permitted taxpayers to take their complaints to an ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner and to executives who maladminister those self-same complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 564.
564) The Civil Service. Neutral? Or A Crumbling Cornerstone Of UK Democracy?
Dear Mr Clark,
In our previous blog we saw the remarkable ease with which the RICS Parliamentary Affairs Team drove home their need to control the lettings market to civil servants, MPs and Ministers.
The RICS were outraged,
"currently there is a clear potential for rogue lettings agents to cash in on the current rental boom due to a combination of consumers' low expectations and a total lack of effective regulation."
Rogue agents? A total lack of effective regulation?
Q. Mr Clark, wasn't it the RICS' very own total lack of effective regulation which led Consumer Focus to warn government about RICS' rogue Members and rogue (Un)Regulated Firms developing practices which did not work in their client's interests?
Peter Bolton King, RICS Global Residential Director, carried on driving home to civil servants, MPs and Ministers his no-nonsense message for change,
"...there are too many corrupt agents that do not belong to any professional body who are taking advantage of the current gap in regulation, putting consumers at risk,"
whilst conveniently overlooking the corrupt Members and corrupt (Un)Regulated Firms belonging to his professional body who gleefully take advantage of RICS' corrupt and scandalous failure to adequately regulate them thereby saddling their clients with massive bills to put right their incompetence.
That's some title to have on your business card.
It's, "Global Campaigning Director Of The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign" from now on. Only we can't afford business cards.
The RICS Global Residential Director wasn't finished,
"...choosing the wrong agent can result in tenants encountering all sorts of problems such as lost deposits, broken agreements and excessive charges. What we would like to see is the government taking direct action on this and introducing a single regulatory and redress system for both sales and lettings agents to make sure they are fully accountable."
(www.arla.co.uk./news/november-2012/rics-issue-press-release-on-regulation-of-lettings-agents)
What the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign would like to see is the government taking direct action and ordering a public inquiry into how it came to be that an entire market in surveying developed practices that did not work in their client's interests, why the RICS fail to adequately regulate their Members, how it is that their appointed ombudsman arrives at decisions in an illogical manner, and why their appointed company's executives maladminister consumers' complaints.
Q. Mr Clark, why have the neutral civil servants who monitor this government approved redress scheme permitted taxpayers to take their complaints to an ombudsman who arrives at decisions in an illogical manner and to executives who maladminister those self-same complaints?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Friday, 6 January 2017
Brexit, Neutral Civil Servants And The RICS (563).
To the Business, Energy and industrial Strategy Secretary,
For Clarity - Attempt 563.
563) Brexit, Neutral Civil Servants And The RICS.
Dear Mr Clark and Sir Leigh Lewis,
Mr Farage, UK Ambassador Without Portfolio, tells us that
"No organisation (apart from UKIP) has done more to give away our democratic rights than the Foreign Office. They've been doing it for decades and I very much hope Sir Ivan is the first of many to go." As Mr Farage is an expert on these matters it must be untrue.
Mr Farage is not criticising civil servants for not being neutral but for being - in his humble opinion - pro European. He doesn't demand that civil servants be neutral but pro Brexit and in so doing undermines our civil service and our democracy.
According to George Eaton writing in the New Statesman, a neutral civil service along with an independent judiciary and a sovereign parliament are the cornerstones of the UK's unwritten constitution. However, these are being systematically and deliberately undermined by those on the right of the Leave Campaign and the establishment press barons supporting and financing it. He says, "it's ideological purity rather than expertise" that those afflicted with Brexitosis require from our civil service.
(www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/how-brexit-breaking-british-constitution)
According to Paul Goodman at conservativehome, "it's an illusion to believe that the civil service is, or has ever been, a fount of the purest neutrality."
(www.conservativehome.com/the torydiary,2017/01/why-top-civil-servants-must-back-brexit)
We agree. It seems for decades the civil service has been undermining their very own cornerstone of our unwritten constitution.
According to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign one of the biggest culprits in undermining the neutrality of our civil service is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or RICS. Instead of doing the job they received their Royal Charter for and effectively regulating their cowboy Members and (Un)Regulated Firms they've been busily undermining the neutrality of our civil servants.
When nobbling Vince Cable to fix the letting industry they boasted that;
"Over the past 18 months, RICS has undertaken a great deal of influencing work (lobbying to the rest of us) - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers. This work has included events in Parliament, briefing of MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants...contact the RICS Parliamentary Affairs team at mthorogood@rics.org."
They were indeed successful in their political influencing and engagement work and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act was amended accordingly.
Their Ombudsman at their appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, now handles the business of investigating complaints about letting agents.
We asked the Civil Service for a Parliamentary Pass for our Parliamentary Affairs Team but never heard from them. So no neutrality there. There's a thing.
Q. Mr Clark, can you explain why the RICS Parliamentary Affairs Team received a pass to lobby MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants, but the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign didn't?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Prioperty and right the wrongs of its Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 563.
563) Brexit, Neutral Civil Servants And The RICS.
Dear Mr Clark and Sir Leigh Lewis,
Mr Farage, UK Ambassador Without Portfolio, tells us that
"No organisation (apart from UKIP) has done more to give away our democratic rights than the Foreign Office. They've been doing it for decades and I very much hope Sir Ivan is the first of many to go." As Mr Farage is an expert on these matters it must be untrue.
Mr Farage is not criticising civil servants for not being neutral but for being - in his humble opinion - pro European. He doesn't demand that civil servants be neutral but pro Brexit and in so doing undermines our civil service and our democracy.
According to George Eaton writing in the New Statesman, a neutral civil service along with an independent judiciary and a sovereign parliament are the cornerstones of the UK's unwritten constitution. However, these are being systematically and deliberately undermined by those on the right of the Leave Campaign and the establishment press barons supporting and financing it. He says, "it's ideological purity rather than expertise" that those afflicted with Brexitosis require from our civil service.
(www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/01/how-brexit-breaking-british-constitution)
According to Paul Goodman at conservativehome, "it's an illusion to believe that the civil service is, or has ever been, a fount of the purest neutrality."
(www.conservativehome.com/the torydiary,2017/01/why-top-civil-servants-must-back-brexit)
We agree. It seems for decades the civil service has been undermining their very own cornerstone of our unwritten constitution.
According to the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign one of the biggest culprits in undermining the neutrality of our civil service is the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors or RICS. Instead of doing the job they received their Royal Charter for and effectively regulating their cowboy Members and (Un)Regulated Firms they've been busily undermining the neutrality of our civil servants.
When nobbling Vince Cable to fix the letting industry they boasted that;
"Over the past 18 months, RICS has undertaken a great deal of influencing work (lobbying to the rest of us) - both publically and behind the scenes - to drive home the need for change to Government and policy makers. This work has included events in Parliament, briefing of MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants...contact the RICS Parliamentary Affairs team at mthorogood@rics.org."
They were indeed successful in their political influencing and engagement work and the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act was amended accordingly.
Their Ombudsman at their appointed company, Ombudsman Services:Property, now handles the business of investigating complaints about letting agents.
We asked the Civil Service for a Parliamentary Pass for our Parliamentary Affairs Team but never heard from them. So no neutrality there. There's a thing.
Q. Mr Clark, can you explain why the RICS Parliamentary Affairs Team received a pass to lobby MPs, Ministers and Civil Servants, but the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign didn't?
Q. Mr Clark, when are you going to step up, challenge the vested interests of the RICS and its appointed company Ombudsman Services:Prioperty and right the wrongs of its Ombudsman's illogical Final Decisions and its executives' maladministration?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Tuesday, 3 January 2017
The Ombudsman Services' Term of Reference - A Pirates' Charter (562).
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary.
For Clarity - Attempt 562.
562) The Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference - A Pirates' Charter.
Dear Mr Clark,
I tried asking Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to comment on 7.3 of her company's Terms of Reference:
"7.3 Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances for non-disclosure."
I also tried asking the Ombudsman:
"- Why wasn't Monk and Partners File made available to me from the outset?
- Why did I have to make a request for this information under the data Protection Act?
- Why haven't you answered my questions regarding Monk and Partners File?
- Why have I not received the photographs taken by Monk and Partners on one of their unannounced visits?"
I did eventually receive the photographs along with the somewhat amazing statement that the Ombudsman, "had not sought them out."
"Had not sought them out," is Ombudspeak for, "didn't bother to look at them."
Apparently, been had, "been unable to seek them out" because her computer didn't work. I was able to seek them out because there was nothing wrong with mine.
The Ombudsman didn't answer my questions save to say she didn't routinely ask her fee-paying RICS Members questions.
I didn't get any reasons from the Ombudsman for her decision not to set out the circumstances justifying her non-disclosure of Monk and Partners' File.
Q. Mr Clark, how did the Ombudsman meet her duty as an Ombudsman as set out in 7.3 of her company's Terms of Reference?
Q. Mr Clark, how can an Ombudsman conduct a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a consumer's complaint when she doesn't routinely ask her fee-paying RICS Members questions?
Q. Mr Clark, how can an Ombudsman conduct a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a consumer's complaint when her computer doesn't work?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsams61percent Campaign
For Clarity - Attempt 562.
562) The Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference - A Pirates' Charter.
Dear Mr Clark,
I tried asking Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman to comment on 7.3 of her company's Terms of Reference:
"7.3 Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances for non-disclosure."
I also tried asking the Ombudsman:
"- Why wasn't Monk and Partners File made available to me from the outset?
- Why did I have to make a request for this information under the data Protection Act?
- Why haven't you answered my questions regarding Monk and Partners File?
- Why have I not received the photographs taken by Monk and Partners on one of their unannounced visits?"
I did eventually receive the photographs along with the somewhat amazing statement that the Ombudsman, "had not sought them out."
"Had not sought them out," is Ombudspeak for, "didn't bother to look at them."
Apparently, been had, "been unable to seek them out" because her computer didn't work. I was able to seek them out because there was nothing wrong with mine.
The Ombudsman didn't answer my questions save to say she didn't routinely ask her fee-paying RICS Members questions.
I didn't get any reasons from the Ombudsman for her decision not to set out the circumstances justifying her non-disclosure of Monk and Partners' File.
Q. Mr Clark, how did the Ombudsman meet her duty as an Ombudsman as set out in 7.3 of her company's Terms of Reference?
Q. Mr Clark, how can an Ombudsman conduct a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a consumer's complaint when she doesn't routinely ask her fee-paying RICS Members questions?
Q. Mr Clark, how can an Ombudsman conduct a fair, thorough and independent investigation of a consumer's complaint when her computer doesn't work?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsams61percent Campaign
The Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference - A Pirate Code? (561)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 561.
561) The Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference - a Pirate Code?
Dear Mr Clark,
We've already seen in previous blogs that the Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference are treated by those maladministrating consumers' complaints as more like a Pirate Code. Sadly, the maladministrators seem to have far less respect for their Terms than pirates did for their Code. There's progress for you.
If you go to www.ombudsman-services.org click on, "our company" then, "governance" and then, "Terms of reference" you will see that 4 Disqualification appears to have disappeared from their, "Terms of reference pre October 2015."
Q. Mr Clark, why has how to disqualify and ombudsman from being an Ombudsman apparently disappeared from this company's Terms of Reference?
Q. Mr Clark, now that this country has apparently taken back control how do we control Ombudsmen who have run amok?
We tried asking Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman;
"5 Ombudsman's Principle Aim:
The Ombudsman's Principle Aim is to receive complaints made by complainants in accordance with these Terms of reference and where appropriate, investigate such complaints in order to encourage and/or facilitate the terms of their resolution, settlement and/or withdrawal.
- At no time have you sought to do this. I see that The Firm, after visiting our home for the xth time, regretted no longer being able to come with an independent surveyor. At no time prior to this was this course of action ever countenanced. Why not?"
Needless to say we didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Clark, The Firm say they regretted not being able to have a surveyor independently re-survey our home. Why didn't they suggest this to us as part of the resolution of our complaint with them?
Q. Mr Clark, if The Firm had offered this to us as part of a resolution to our dispute when we were in their, "Complaints Handling Procedure" there would have been no need to have gone to their Ombudsman. If they were suggesting this to their Ombudsman why weren't they suggesting this to us?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't Gillian Fleming suggest an independent re-survey of our home as part of the resolution of our complaint about The Firm?
Q. Mr Clark, we asked Gillian Fleming for an independent re-survey of our home and she refused. Why?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 561.
561) The Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference - a Pirate Code?
Dear Mr Clark,
We've already seen in previous blogs that the Ombudsman Services' Terms of Reference are treated by those maladministrating consumers' complaints as more like a Pirate Code. Sadly, the maladministrators seem to have far less respect for their Terms than pirates did for their Code. There's progress for you.
If you go to www.ombudsman-services.org click on, "our company" then, "governance" and then, "Terms of reference" you will see that 4 Disqualification appears to have disappeared from their, "Terms of reference pre October 2015."
Q. Mr Clark, why has how to disqualify and ombudsman from being an Ombudsman apparently disappeared from this company's Terms of Reference?
Q. Mr Clark, now that this country has apparently taken back control how do we control Ombudsmen who have run amok?
We tried asking Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Property Ombudsman;
"5 Ombudsman's Principle Aim:
The Ombudsman's Principle Aim is to receive complaints made by complainants in accordance with these Terms of reference and where appropriate, investigate such complaints in order to encourage and/or facilitate the terms of their resolution, settlement and/or withdrawal.
- At no time have you sought to do this. I see that The Firm, after visiting our home for the xth time, regretted no longer being able to come with an independent surveyor. At no time prior to this was this course of action ever countenanced. Why not?"
Needless to say we didn't get an answer.
Q. Mr Clark, The Firm say they regretted not being able to have a surveyor independently re-survey our home. Why didn't they suggest this to us as part of the resolution of our complaint with them?
Q. Mr Clark, if The Firm had offered this to us as part of a resolution to our dispute when we were in their, "Complaints Handling Procedure" there would have been no need to have gone to their Ombudsman. If they were suggesting this to their Ombudsman why weren't they suggesting this to us?
Q. Mr Clark, why didn't Gillian Fleming suggest an independent re-survey of our home as part of the resolution of our complaint about The Firm?
Q. Mr Clark, we asked Gillian Fleming for an independent re-survey of our home and she refused. Why?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Monday, 2 January 2017
Ombudsman Services:Property. The RICS Member Firm. The Disqualification of an Ombudsman (560)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 560.
560) The Disqualification of an Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Clark,
It doesn't seem that so far in this country an ombudsman has ever been disqualified.
However, there hasn't been an awful lot of a critical nature that's been written about them and as they're more secretive than The Masons such matters are likely to go unreported.
Our letter to Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Ombudsman continued;
"I have read the Terms of Reference and would like to raise this point:
4. Disqualification (b) does any act or finds himself/herself in any position which, in the reasonable opinion of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Member Board, conflicts or is likely to conflict with his/her position and/or the exercise of his/her powers and/or duties as Surveyors Ombudsman Service board member, or the effective operation of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service, the Ombudsman or these terms of Reference ...."
Q. Does it not bring the Service into disrepute when you accept evidence gathered in this way? Surely, the proper thing to have done in this situation would have been to have written to The Firm saying that evidence gathered in such a fashion, is not acceptable?
Q. Why didn't this trigger a reappraisal of all of The Firm's so-called "evidence?" Or does this service set one standard for its members and another for complainants?"
It is not that you have not answered some of the questions posed by a complainant. It is that you have not answered any of my questions or that some of the responses you have made have, in themselves, raised further questions."
Needless to say the ombudsman didn't answer my questions.
Q. Mr Clark, how is it conceivably possible for an ombudsman to investigate a consumer's complainant fairly and independently when they will not answer a consumer's questions? Isn't it time that this wholly unacceptable state of affairs was in itself investigated?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
For Clarity - Attempt 560.
560) The Disqualification of an Ombudsman.
Dear Mr Clark,
It doesn't seem that so far in this country an ombudsman has ever been disqualified.
However, there hasn't been an awful lot of a critical nature that's been written about them and as they're more secretive than The Masons such matters are likely to go unreported.
Our letter to Gillian Fleming, the Ombudsman Services:Ombudsman continued;
"I have read the Terms of Reference and would like to raise this point:
4. Disqualification (b) does any act or finds himself/herself in any position which, in the reasonable opinion of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service Member Board, conflicts or is likely to conflict with his/her position and/or the exercise of his/her powers and/or duties as Surveyors Ombudsman Service board member, or the effective operation of the Surveyors Ombudsman Service, the Ombudsman or these terms of Reference ...."
Q. Does it not bring the Service into disrepute when you accept evidence gathered in this way? Surely, the proper thing to have done in this situation would have been to have written to The Firm saying that evidence gathered in such a fashion, is not acceptable?
Q. Why didn't this trigger a reappraisal of all of The Firm's so-called "evidence?" Or does this service set one standard for its members and another for complainants?"
It is not that you have not answered some of the questions posed by a complainant. It is that you have not answered any of my questions or that some of the responses you have made have, in themselves, raised further questions."
Needless to say the ombudsman didn't answer my questions.
Q. Mr Clark, how is it conceivably possible for an ombudsman to investigate a consumer's complainant fairly and independently when they will not answer a consumer's questions? Isn't it time that this wholly unacceptable state of affairs was in itself investigated?
Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.
Sunday, 1 January 2017
"U-Huh" Sinkane. (559)
To the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary:
For Clarity - Attempt 559.
559) Sinkane -"U'Huh."
Dear Mr Clark,
In Post-Brexit, Brexit Means Brexit Britain, 2017 is the time to wake up to the fact that we - that's us and not you - haven't actually taken back control of anything.
For example:
- The RICS still send their criminally, incompetently (Un)Regulated Members and (Un)Regulated Firms to their appointed ombudsman in order to get them off the hook.
- Their appointed ombudsman and team of so-called investigators not only accomplishes this with great gusto but no longer bother to collect and publish meaningful data on their collusive performance.
- The Privy Council claims to be at the heart of what the RICS do but routinely fail to account for the fact that this organisation inadequately regulates its (Un)Regulated Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place and that if they had only done the job they received their Royal Charter for there would absolutely have been no need for them to have appointed an ombudsman or team of highly paid maladminstrating executives.
- The NHS National Framework for Continuing Healthcare is in reality The NHS National Framework for a Continuing Extortion Racket, conning thousands of sick, elderly and dying taxpayers out of all they've ever worked for.
- And at a time of austerity for many The Government simply fails to collect the taxes of the rich and powerful who continue free to stash their wealth in British off-shore tax havens.
However, it is New Years day an as Ahmed Gallab says;
"times are tough, struggles have always existed in our lives, but hope, love and the power of positivity help us to stay alive."
"We're gonna be alright..."
Q. Mr Clark, is it true that we're all gonna be alright when you step up to the mark challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrongs of their ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and their executives' maladministration?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign would like to wish everyone 365 days of hope, love and positivity in 2017.
For Clarity - Attempt 559.
559) Sinkane -"U'Huh."
Dear Mr Clark,
In Post-Brexit, Brexit Means Brexit Britain, 2017 is the time to wake up to the fact that we - that's us and not you - haven't actually taken back control of anything.
For example:
- The RICS still send their criminally, incompetently (Un)Regulated Members and (Un)Regulated Firms to their appointed ombudsman in order to get them off the hook.
- Their appointed ombudsman and team of so-called investigators not only accomplishes this with great gusto but no longer bother to collect and publish meaningful data on their collusive performance.
- The Privy Council claims to be at the heart of what the RICS do but routinely fail to account for the fact that this organisation inadequately regulates its (Un)Regulated Members and (Un)Regulated Firms in the first place and that if they had only done the job they received their Royal Charter for there would absolutely have been no need for them to have appointed an ombudsman or team of highly paid maladminstrating executives.
- The NHS National Framework for Continuing Healthcare is in reality The NHS National Framework for a Continuing Extortion Racket, conning thousands of sick, elderly and dying taxpayers out of all they've ever worked for.
- And at a time of austerity for many The Government simply fails to collect the taxes of the rich and powerful who continue free to stash their wealth in British off-shore tax havens.
However, it is New Years day an as Ahmed Gallab says;
"times are tough, struggles have always existed in our lives, but hope, love and the power of positivity help us to stay alive."
"We're gonna be alright..."
Q. Mr Clark, is it true that we're all gonna be alright when you step up to the mark challenge the vested interests of the RICS and right the wrongs of their ombudsman's illogical Final decisions and their executives' maladministration?
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign would like to wish everyone 365 days of hope, love and positivity in 2017.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)